/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22211865]

Just finished reading the whole book and while the premise of the book is good, the actual plot and story is pretty much subpar, having large plot holes for no good reason? Like when Julia wants to remove a crucial painting to check for bugs, but decides not to for no reason, after which it's revealed that due to that painting they were being spied on? The ending was pretty shit and expected too, wow bravo, you got proven wrong that your spirit can be crushed before being shot in the back much like every other disenter.
But what's the point??? What a shit read and a waste of time

[Anonymous No.22211874]

>>22211865
https://archive.org/details/undertriplesuns0000stan/mode/2up

Under the Triple Suns is a superior Sci-fi novel

[Anonymous No.22211876]

>>22211865
because there's a meaning and shit in it you idiot, the whole book is about totalitarian regime = bad

[Anonymous No.22211884]

>>22211876
Not very compelling arguments other than a shitty strawman coupled with poor writing. Orwell was a hack.

[Anonymous No.22211899]

>>22211876
A thing every person already knows. If the main character was shown actually doing something other than silently rebelling by himself, it would have been a worthwhile read. The most rebellious thing the main character does during the book is choosing to rent a room (Wow!). You'd think he'd at least try to publish the piece of paper that would scrutiny the movement with the three people still alive, given he was actively working in a place where the writer could have given him more opportunities to actually rebel against the state. It's a great fucking disappointment to read through the whole book without experiencing at least one silent victory. Or something that's worth reading -- a good read! Too bad Mr. George was funded by CIA to make his book as bland as possible so the boomers would gobble anti-totalitarian slop propaganda easier. No good plot allowed am I right.
>>22211884
And exactly this, Orwell was a shit writer.

[Anonymous No.22211920]

>>22211865
>>22211865
the point is that theres a bad regime without ideology suppressing a good truth without definition, so you can cast your political opponents as the former and yourself as the latter when you reference the book in arguments

[Anonymous No.22211927]

>>22211920
so it’s just a story of leviathan and humanity exaggerated?

[Anonymous No.22211940]

>>22211865
bitching about 1984 at this point is like bitching about Super Mario because you can only run and jump.

[Anonymous No.22211957]

>>22211920
I've always seen it as a lame attempt at stopping postmodernism. But the "arguments" are not at all fleshed out and left to the reader simply agreeing with the main character and projecting their own view as the rational person in a world of irrational people (those who disagree with me).
The "2+2 =4 and everything else follows" followed by "sanity is not statistical" is the dumbest shit i've read. It gives the reader the certainty that truth is immediately available to them effortlesly, and that even if the whole world tells them they are wrong they are still right anyway. It is a bit ironic how the book ends up aiding the reader in not questioning their beliefs due to the one size fits all approach.

[Anonymous No.22211973]

>>22211957
>I've always seen it as a lame attempt at stopping postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.22212012]

>>22211973
is the word postmodernism just pseud now?

[Anonymous No.22212912]

>>22211865
It does seem weird that Winston blindly trusted O'Brien for absolutely no reason, but I guess Orwell pointed that out by saying that he subconsciously wanted to get caught making the dumbest mistake he could make